Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

Are there any statistics on the numbers of murders committed by people who are already doing life in prison for murder?
snip
Personally the circumstance I would envision where the death penalty serves a public good was more along the lines of a terrorist or gang leader that continues to plot and direct criminal activities from within prison. Don’t know how common that is, except for anecdotes.

But in general - I have grave doubts about a system that preferentially executes the poor.

I know of no such statistic, but am sure it exists.

We know that we have allowed about 14000 murderers to murder, again - recidivist murderers just since 1973 (1)

7-8% of those on death row got there by being repeat murderers while in prison (See BJS Capital Punishment 2010), As there have been about 8300 sent to death row since 1973, we are looking at about 600 murders, just with that small data base.

Criminals plotting in prisons, for crime therein or in the free world are extremely common.

Cell phone smuggling, within prisons, is a major business and problem. Do a search.

1. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

 

[Erik1978]

Are you willing to accept the occasional inocent person being excecuted for the common good? You can never prove 100% someone is guilty so there is always a chance you are killing the wrong person.

youtube.com/watch?v=AZEa_f3wloU&list=PLwGOqnqmHOzFjnP4fwBHdK8QLgyirRn9q

This is the first clip of an HBO documentary on prison violence. I want to warn you that if you are sensitive to images of graphic violence please do not watch this.

This is the point I’m trying to make. The guy was in prison already for murder and then planned and carried out another murder. We also have to remember the people who are being killed in prison also have families who love them. They are part of society as well. I included the youtube link to graphicly show this is not a theological debate in a vacuum. It’s real and occurs hundreds of times each year. Is the death penalty justified in this situation?

 

[Spider42]

A Catholic can either share the Pope’s take on the Death Penalty, or they can still support it. Both will still be in communion with the Church. I agree with the Pope.

It really is that simple.

Only if one is a Protestant.

Seriously, for Catholics you either agree with the Magisterium, in which case you are in ‘communion’ with the Church, or you disagree with the Magisterium, in which case you are in ‘dissent’ with the Mother Church (see the definition from Rome I posted earlier) on a life issue. You can’t both be in full communion and in dissent at the same time.

This particular dissent does not rise to the level where the ordinary can deny you communion for publicly endorsing it (because a licit application is at least theoretically possible), but the teaching is not “optional” (the local Catechism is binding).

Think about it this way, can a Catholic freely agree and disagree with the Church on abortion?

Dogmatically, the answer is no, direct abortion is always a grave moral disorder. This is infallibly held to be true by the universal agreement of the Magisterium (Evangelium Vitae). The foundation of this is also dogmatic, life is the inalienable right of every human person that cannot be rightfully abridged (Gaudium et spes).

Now, let’s say a Catholic not only supports the death penalty, but believes that it is rightful for punitive reasons, that the guilty deserve to pay with their lives, or that society has the right to use the death as a deterrent to others…

Once someone goes from disagreeing with the Church on licit application of the death penalty using the Church’s standards to disagreeing with the Church on the underlying concept that the death penalty can only be used if there is no other ways to protect others, it is no longer just about the death penalty. That Catholic does not believe in the foundation of our belief about abortion. That is, the Catholic no longer believes in life as an inalienable right of the human person. They may, personally, oppose abortion too, but they are not really in communion with the Church on that teaching either because they reject ‘every stage, every condition’ (Christifideles Laici)

This is the reason I keep making this ‘complicated’. The ‘simple’ answer isn’t what the Church teaches. Certain lay groups, yes, the Church, no. ‘Moving the goalposts’ is human nature, but Catholics are called to do what is right, not what is easy. And, as it happens, ‘Moving the goalposts’ is one of the problems that the Church is concerned about (see Donum Vertatis which I linked above). Because doing so publicly and aggressively means that the dissent is no longer just a spiritual danger to oneself, but also to others while undermining the rightful apostolic authority of the Church.

Peace

 

[Spider42]

This is the point I’m trying to make. The guy was in prison already for murder and then planned and carried out another murder. We also have to remember the people who are being killed in prison also have families who love them. They are part of society as well. I included the youtube link to graphicly show this is not a theological debate in a vacuum. It’s real and occurs hundreds of times each year. Is the death penalty justified in this situation?

Who, precisely would you execute? The known violent felon, or the people who failed to properly guard and supervise him? The politicians who decided that overcrowded, understaffed prisons were fine because they didn’t want to ‘coddle’ bad people with taxpayer money perhaps?

If you want to argue that the prison system needs to be reformed, the bishops are well ahead of you. But if you want to argue that we should start taking away the inalienable right to life because the wealthiest nation in the history of man has a corrupt, overcrowded, systemically violent prison system smack in the middle of a culture of death - I’m sure you can find individuals to agree with you, but not the Magisterium.

Pax Christi

 

[Erik1978]

Who, precisely would you execute? The known violent felon, or the people who failed to properly guard and supervise him? The politicians who decided that overcrowded, understaffed prisons were fine because they didn’t want to ‘coddle’ bad people with taxpayer money perhaps?

If you want to argue that the prison system needs to be reformed, the bishops are well ahead of you. But if you want to argue that we should start taking away the inalienable right to life because the wealthiest nation in the history of man has a corrupt, overcrowded, systemically violent prison system smack in the middle of a culture of death - I’m sure you can find individuals to agree with you, but not the Magisterium.

Pax Christi

The question is not about the prison system. No prison system is perfect. Also, by what I’m reading in earlier post the Church does allow capital punishment. The question being under what circumstances can this be applied. By the way the person in the video is on death row and appealing his conviction. One other thing. I corresponde with several inmates at prisons across the country. They have told me that other inmates have commited multiple murders while inside.

 

[Debora123]

Only if one is a Protestant.

Seriously, for Catholics you either agree with the Magisterium, in which case you are in ‘communion’ with the Church, or you disagree with the Magisterium, in which case you are in ‘dissent’ with the Mother Church (see the definition from Rome I posted earlier) on a life issue. You can’t both be in full communion and in dissent at the same time.

This particular dissent does not rise to the level where the ordinary can deny you communion for publicly endorsing it (because a licit application is at least theoretically possible), but the teaching is not “optional” (the local Catechism is binding).

Think about it this way, can a Catholic freely agree and disagree with the Church on abortion?

Dogmatically, the answer is no, direct abortion is always a grave moral disorder. This is infallibly held to be true by the universal agreement of the Magisterium (Evangelium Vitae). The foundation of this is also dogmatic, life is the inalienable right of every human person that cannot be rightfully abridged (Gaudium et spes).

Now, let’s say a Catholic not only supports the death penalty, but believes that it is rightful for punitive reasons, that the guilty deserve to pay with their lives, or that society has the right to use the death as a deterrent to others…

Once someone goes from disagreeing with the Church on licit application of the death penalty using the Church’s standards to disagreeing with the Church on the underlying concept that the death penalty can only be used if there is no other ways to protect others, it is no longer just about the death penalty. That Catholic does not believe in the foundation of our belief about abortion. That is, the Catholic no longer believes in life as an inalienable right of the human person. They may, personally, oppose abortion too, but they are not really in communion with the Church on that teaching either because they reject ‘every stage, every condition’ (Christifideles Laici)

This is the reason I keep making this ‘complicated’. The ‘simple’ answer isn’t what the Church teaches. Certain lay groups, yes, the Church, no. ‘Moving the goalposts’ is human nature, but Catholics are called to do what is right, not what is easy. And, as it happens, ‘Moving the goalposts’ is one of the problems that the Church is concerned about (see Donum Vertatis which I linked above). Because doing so publicly and aggressively means that the dissent is no longer just a spiritual danger to oneself, but also to others while undermining the rightful apostolic authority of the Church.

Peace

I appreciate you taking the time to try to explain to me, but I stand by what I originally said. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with a Catholic not supporting the Death Penalty. At this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what’s an acceptable position for a Catholic to take in regards to this issue.

 

[Spider42]

I appreciate you taking the time to try to explain to me, but I stand by what I originally said. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with a Catholic not supporting the Death Penalty. At this point we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what’s an acceptable position for a Catholic to take in regards to this issue.

Honestly, I’m surprised you even perceive us as having any form of debate. I am simply telling you what the Church teaches, and providing the references to doctrinal notes etc so you can confirm it.

If you do not mind my asking, what, as you understand it, is the criteria by which Catholics can simply ignore what the apostles teach?

Please understand, I’m not trying to goad you. I am sincerely interested in your thinking/understanding. I, myself, am under an Oath of Fealty, so “religious submission of will and intellect” has a very specific meaning for me. I have to tread carefully if I question, say, the wisdom of a few bishops fighting something in the legal system. The idea of crossing multiple popes and the written local and universal catechism, not to mention a significant encyclical and the pastoral constitution of the church, with regards to taking an unarmed person wholly under the state’s control and running electricity through them until their heart explodes is so alien to me that I sincerely need your help understanding how the disagreement is not a matter of faith and morals.

Peace

 

[Debora123]

Honestly, I’m surprised you even perceive us as having any form of debate. I am simply telling you what the Church teaches, and providing the references to doctrinal notes etc so you can confirm it.

If you do not mind my asking, what, as you understand it, is the criteria by which Catholics can simply ignore what the apostles teach?

Please understand, I’m not trying to goad you. I am sincerely interested in your thinking/understanding. I, myself, am under an Oath of Fealty, so “religious submission of will and intellect” has a very specific meaning for me. I have to tread carefully if I question, say, the wisdom of a few bishops fighting something in the legal system. The idea of crossing multiple popes and the written local and universal catechism, not to mention a significant encyclical and the pastoral constitution of the church, with regards to taking an unarmed person wholly under the state’s control and running electricity through them until their heart explodes is so alien to me that I sincerely need your help understanding how the disagreement is not a matter of faith and morals.

Peace

I just know a Catholic is free to not supporter the Death Penalty. And I know that because heck, the Pope himself didn’t support it… and actually called for an end to it. The USCCB speaks out against it vehemently. And they’re not decenter, obviously.

I don’t think the Death Penalty is necessary to keep the populous safe anymore. At least not in this country where we have the means for high security prisons. So I don’t support it. If I was ever in a jury, I would NEVER agree to recommend the death penalty to any criminal.

There’s nothing else to say, because you’ll keep saying a good/practicing Catholic ought not to be against it, and I’ll keep saying they are free to be against it or for it without being decenters. And we’ll just never agree on this. I’m sorry.

 

[Spider42]

The question is not about the prison system. No prison system is perfect. Also, by what I’m reading in earlier post the Church does allow capital punishment. The question being under what circumstances can this be applied. By the way the person in the video is on death row and appealing his conviction. One other thing. I corresponde with several inmates at prisons across the country. They have told me that other inmates have commited multiple murders while inside.

You are caught in something theologians are taught is a trap. That is, you want to use something that occurs in prisons as a possible justification for the death penalty, but you do not want to look at the system as a whole.

Think about it though. The prisoners are wholly under the state’s control. If they are killing other people at the facility, then they have access to weapons and inappropriate privacy with other individuals. For the death penalty to be licit from a Catholic perspective, this would have to be unavoidable. But we *know *that it is not unavoidable. Both in civilian and military prisons, inmate on inmate violence is virtually non existent at the very highest incarceration security levels.

The problem is dominantly at the lower security level institutions, which are a huge systemic problem in the US. Since 1980 we have gone from about 500,000 prisoners to almost 2.5M prisoners in custody, the highest incarceration rate in the world. And we mix violent and non violent offenders to a much greater degree than most the industrialized world.

Of course the bishops are concerned about this situation. Look at the Gospel of Matthew. How we treat our prisoners is a criteria used by the Son of Man in judging us as a nation with regards to salvation. But they are obliged to look to the teachings of Christ for solutions.

If you want to bring cruel reality into the situation, let’s take a real case. A young man once stole a small amount cash to buy groceries for his mother and siblings. Because of some odd overlap in laws he was both tried both as an adult and as a Federal offense. He wound up serving in a Federal penitentiary. Small wonder, his public defender never really reviewed his case and was having an extramarital affair with the prosecutor.

Being very young, he was regularly brutalized by other inmates, but his real problems started after he was beaten unconscious by a guard for reasons which are still unknown and for which the guards later gave grossly conflicting reports. After several weeks in a coma he recovered, but with serious brain damage, which impaired his impulse control. This led to protracted periods of dark isolation for various infractions. At one point he spent almost three years in solitary confinement without light.

When another inmate threatened to inform on him for an infraction that would again lead to solitary confinement, he stabbed the man and was tried for capitol first degree murder.

Is this who you want to execute? The Church sees this as a product of a culture of death, not a root cause. That’s why the Magisterium seeks to address stories like above (and they abound), at every level, from a Catholic moral perspective.

No, not every story is as troubling as the one above, but addressing the ‘victimization by other inmates’ using the bishops’ recommendations would address your concern without the necessity of killing any unarmed and defenseless human beings.

Also, yes, the Church teaches that the death penalty can be licitly used as a last resort for public safety, but also teaches that such applications are exceedingly rare if not “practically nonexistent”. You appear to be arguing for a broad based use of the death penalty, which the Magisterium teaches would promote a culture of death.

Pax Christi

 

[Spider42]

There’s nothing else to say, because you’ll keep saying a good/practicing Catholic ought not to be against it, and I’ll keep saying they are free to be against it or for it without being decenters. And we’ll just never agree on this. I’m sorry.

Because of my obligation to truth I have to point out that I am not labeling any one at all. I provided the Church’s definition of dissent (see above) as explained by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

The word “dissent” isn’t supposed to be an insult. People like me are encouraged to use it because it makes it clear that the Church has special moral authority. I can ‘disagree’ with you, but I can only be in ‘respectful dissent’ with the Church. Using the word ‘disagree’ wouldn’t be appropriate because it would imply that I am a moral equal to the Magisterium (essentially Protestantism).

I thought my question was clear, but I’ll try it a different way. Are you saying that all Church teaching is optional? That is, Catholics each pick and choose for themselves what they agree with?

Or are you saying that some teachings are mandatory and some are optional?

Perhaps I made a mistake earlier. I seem to have presumed that your point of view was the latter and jumped ahead to asking how you decide which teachings to adhere to. I am truly sorry.

I am also sorry if my rattling off Church documents is discouraging you from speaking freely. Forgive me. My wife and children died many years ago and I’ve been studying such things a long time. Rest assured, everyone here is my brother and sister in Christ and I am just another sinner.

I am asking you these questions because ‘agree to disagree’ isn’t, generally, how I am supposed to respond.

"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

<<Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.>>" - CCC 2478, quoting Saint Ignatius of Loyola

If you are certain you are correct, then your moral conscience is certain that I am wrong. Yes?

I am not asking you to debate me, I am asking you to explain to me. That is, I am inviting you to share the faith as you understand it. If my moral conscience is truly malformed, I’d like to correct it. But, respectfully, ‘I just know’ does not give me much to go on.

Pax Christi

 

[Debora123]

Dissent… lol, not “decent.”

Wow, I feel stupid. It’s late… Lol.

 

[Erik1978]

You are caught in something theologians are taught is a trap. That is, you want to use something that occurs in prisons as a possible justification for the death penalty, but you do not want to look at the system as a whole.

Think about it though. The prisoners are wholly under the state’s control. If they are killing other people at the facility, then they have access to weapons and inappropriate privacy with other individuals. For the death penalty to be licit from a Catholic perspective, this would have to be unavoidable. But we *know *that it is not unavoidable. Both in civilian and military prisons, inmate on inmate violence is virtually non existent at the very highest incarceration security levels.

The problem is dominantly at the lower security level institutions, which are a huge systemic problem in the US. Since 1980 we have gone from about 500,000 prisoners to almost 2.5M prisoners in custody, the highest incarceration rate in the world. And we mix violent and non violent offenders to a much greater degree than most the industrialized world.

Of course the bishops are concerned about this situation. Look at the Gospel of Matthew. How we treat our prisoners is a criteria used by the Son of Man in judging us as a nation with regards to salvation. But they are obliged to look to the teachings of Christ for solutions.

If you want to bring cruel reality into the situation, let’s take a real case. A young man once stole a small amount cash to buy groceries for his mother and siblings. Because of some odd overlap in laws he was both tried both as an adult and as a Federal offense. He wound up serving in a Federal penitentiary. Small wonder, his public defender never really reviewed his case and was having an extramarital affair with the prosecutor.

Being very young, he was regularly brutalized by other inmates, but his real problems started after he was beaten unconscious by a guard for reasons which are still unknown and for which the guards later gave grossly conflicting reports. After several weeks in a coma he recovered, but with serious brain damage, which impaired his impulse control. This led to protracted periods of dark isolation for various infractions. At one point he spent almost three years in solitary confinement without light.

When another inmate threatened to inform on him for an infraction that would again lead to solitary confinement, he stabbed the man and was tried for capitol first degree murder.

Is this who you want to execute? The Church sees this as a product of a culture of death, not a root cause. That’s why the Magisterium seeks to address stories like above (and they abound), at every level, from a Catholic moral perspective.

No, not every story is as troubling as the one above, but addressing the ‘victimization by other inmates’ using the bishops’ recommendations would address your concern without the necessity of killing any unarmed and defenseless human beings.

Also, yes, the Church teaches that the death penalty can be licitly used as a last resort for public safety, but also teaches that such applications are exceedingly rare if not “practically nonexistent”. You appear to be arguing for a broad based use of the death penalty, which the Magisterium teaches would promote a culture of death.

Pax Christi

I am not calling for a blanket execution for all people who commit murder in prison. Each one has to be judged on a case by case basis. But there is justification in some of these situations if the Church says it can be licitly used as you pointed out. Another thing judges have to decide which cases merit the dealth penalty. He/She cannot always run back to the bishop to get their OK. Besides, the Church didn’t seem to mind executions a few hundred years ago or earlier. Why all the compunction now?
For me personally. I’m against it until they start killing inside prison. I’ve been writing to several inmates over the last year and most are in for murder. I honestly have a heart for these guys but the stories they tell me makes me realize that this is not an easy problem to fix. I do understand that the prison system is broke but I think that’s because there are so many different prison systems in the country. Some work a lot better than others. The one thing I can say is that the prison culture (aka convict code) is the cause of a lot of the violence

 

[sw85]

Are you willing to accept the occasional inocent person being excecuted for the common good? You can never prove 100% someone is guilty so there is always a chance you are killing the wrong person.

Previous societies were (or, rather, weren’t willing to compromise their justice systems with this sort of radical-doubt critical epistemology), so again, I’m not sure how the demands of the common good as it exists today have been altered in such a way as to make the death penalty illicit in “most” cases.

 

[J_Peterson]

Previous societies were (or, rather, weren’t willing to compromise their justice systems with this sort of radical-doubt critical epistemology), so again, I’m not sure how the demands of the common good as it exists today have been altered in such a way as to make the death penalty illicit in “most” cases.

People on death row have been found innocent. There were people who pled guilty to avoid death row and were later found to be innocent. There have been people killed by the state who were later found to be innocent.

I’m not sure what “radical-doubt critical epistemology” means. Frankly, I don’t care, this isn’t some metaphysical concept, these are real people with real lives. Previous societies burned people alive when they were thought to have commited a crime. That’s not a good argument for the death penalty.

 

[sw85]

People on death row have been found innocent. There were people who pled guilty to avoid death row and were later found to be innocent. There have been people killed by the state who were later found to be innocent.

I’m not sure what “radical-doubt critical epistemology” means. Frankly, I don’t care, this isn’t some metaphysical concept, these are real people with real lives. Previous societies burned people alive when they were thought to have commited a crime. That’s not a good argument for the death penalty.

Again, this is all as true as it’s ever been. Since there has always been the possibility of executing innocent people, it cannot be an argument for how the common good is different today than it has ever been in the past, which is the argument the Church has put on offer.

 

[dudleysharp]

Are you willing to accept the occasional inocent person being excecuted for the common good? You can never prove 100% someone is guilty so there is always a chance you are killing the wrong person.

Yes, that is true.

But, far more innocent people will be lost, should the death penalty go away.

1. The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html
3. LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION
   99.7% of murderers tell us “Give me life, not execution”
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

 

[paddysham]

god gives life and no one but god has the right to take life

 

[Erik1978]

People on death row have been found innocent. There were people who pled guilty to avoid death row and were later found to be innocent. There have been people killed by the state who were later found to be innocent.

I’m not sure what “radical-doubt critical epistemology” means. Frankly, I don’t care, this isn’t some metaphysical concept, these are real people with real lives. Previous societies burned people alive when they were thought to have commited a crime. That’s not a good argument for the death penalty.

I will agree that first time offenders shouldn’t get the death penalty because there is a chance of innocence. However, the video link I gave earlier proves beyond any doubt who commited the murder because the entire murder was video taped. It was carefully planned and carried out. There was no remorse on the part of the killer. This is the type of situation I feel warrents the death penalty. Each case must be looked at on it’s own merits.

 

[dudleysharp]

Since there has always been the possibility of executing innocent people, it cannot be an argument for how the common good is different today than it has ever been in the past, which is the argument the Church has put on offer.

Precisely.

In fact, today it is safer than ever.

 

[Spider42]

I am not calling for a blanket execution for all people who commit murder in prison. Each one has to be judged on a case by case basis.

Yes, as it is now, and as it demonstrably executes innocent people now.

But there is justification in some of these situations if the Church says it can be licitly used as you pointed out.

No, I must limit myself to pointing out what the Church actually teaches. The Church teaches that applications are *theoretically *licit, but specific applications, like that in the US, do not meet the required criteria.

The US Catechism for Adults specifically points to our use of the death penalty as contributing to a culture of death. And multiple Vicars of Christ have expressly called on US Catholics to help abolish our use of it. As a ‘state’, the Vatican supports a UN treaty banning the use of the death penalty.

But the Church has always taught that “nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will”. (Dignitatis humanae #10). So if you want to believe that society can properly judge and kill people, no one can stop you.

But the Catholic faith is a lifelong challenge. Human nature is to move the goal posts but we are called to keep growing spiritually. It is *always *a struggle. Take my exchanges with Deborah above. She is teaching other Catholics with *certainty *based on something she ‘just knows’ and has stated flatly that nothing I can ever quote from Rome will sway her to change her thinking. Her moral conscience has embraced the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, but she, like all of us, still faces spiritual challenges.

Remember, the simplest formula of the faith is the Two Commandments of Love (Compendium to the Catechism, Appendix B). When you love the people you want to execute, to the point that you would mourn their death like your own spouse or child, then I would say that the second commandment placed on each of us by Christ is fullfilled. Until that time, I would strongly urge every Catholic to start with the presumption that the Church is correct and that our individual moral consciences need to grow.

After all, we have an apostolic Church, it is a shame not to use it!

Pax Christi